3 ms·

They’re some combination of deranged, depressed and looking for a thrill. In most countries they fail to stab someone. Here they have guns.

add-sub-mul-div 7mo ago
Before passing judgment consider that while you may have the privilege of posting from a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny, that's not necessarily the case for others.
- d3ff 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > that's not necessarily the case for others Totally agree. I’m speaking to cases in America. If you’re in a rich country broadly at peace with competitive elections to any degree, and you’re choosing violence, you should vacation to e.g. Burma or Sudan or Libya or Ethiopia and see the cost of the violence you’re glorifying.
- lesuorac 7mo ago
  Tyranny of a bunch of rich white men having to pay taxes lol. There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk.
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    >There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk. Ah, yes. All Slaveholders. I once toured John Adam's former plantation. It's expansive. Really puts Monticello to shame. (the joke here being that John Adams was a practicing lawyer in state that didn't even have slavery).
    - collingreen 7mo ago
      Super good joke. Since your point seems to be that not all the founding fathers parent was referring to were actually slave owners do you have a claim for a rough ratio? I think that would be interesting and would be a more informative thing regardless of where on the scale it lands from "everybody but Adams" all the way up to "only a big names like Washington, Jefferson".
      - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
        To a first order approximation half the founders were from New England (no slavery) and the other half were from Virginia (no realistic chance of being important/rich enough to be a signatory without owning slaves). So call it 50-50
- abenga 7mo ago
  > a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny Do you have an example of such a country?
d3ff 7mo ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > There isnt a well known CEO in europe whos been the target of a failed stabbing Sure. Figurative language will be figurative. There have been tons of assasinations in the last 10 years of police chiefs, politicians, journalists and an MP. If we’re being pedantic, there isn’t technically a CEO in America who’s been killed. Mangione potted a middle manager with a CEO title. The billionaires who own the company are fine, as is the group CEO, and none of them materially changed any policies as a result of his death.
hackable_sand 7mo ago
You can't keep marginalizing people and expecting stability. Here's your canary.
- andsoitis 7mo ago
  > You can't keep marginalizing people and expecting stability. People who shoot someone or throw bombs at someone even though that someone never did something against them, should be marginalized. In prison.
  - hackable_sand 7mo ago
    Okay
  - s5300 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - c_o_n_v_e_x 7mo ago
    >People who shoot someone or throw bombs at someone even though that someone never did something against them I think the point is that there's going to be an increasingly large percentage of the populace who think that the AI bosses / billionaire class did indeed do something against them.
    - munksbeer 7mo ago
      This has always been the case, hasn't it? There have always been groups of people who perceive technology change as a negative, or they are in fact negatively impacted. But they didn't ask the rest of us if we're ok for them to murder someone on our behalf. Personally I hope that AI will be a step change for the positive. I think it is inevitable that it will progress form here, in the darwinian sense, that someone else on this thread mentioned. With that in mind, we should all be pushing for it to be used to our benefit, rather than detriment. And like almost all technological advances in the past, I think this can happen. So if people are saying violence against Sam Altman is expected, then they're also saying violence against me is expected, because I am hopeful and vaguely supportive of the technology. That's quite scary.

add-sub-mul-div 7mo ago

Before passing judgment consider that while you may have the privilege of posting from a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny, that's not necessarily the case for others.

d3ff 7mo ago
[flagged]
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> that's not necessarily the case for others Totally agree. I’m speaking to cases in America. If you’re in a rich country broadly at peace with competitive elections to any degree, and you’re choosing violence, you should vacation to e.g. Burma or Sudan or Libya or Ethiopia and see the cost of the violence you’re glorifying.
lesuorac 7mo ago
Tyranny of a bunch of rich white men having to pay taxes lol. There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk.
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  >There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk. Ah, yes. All Slaveholders. I once toured John Adam's former plantation. It's expansive. Really puts Monticello to shame. (the joke here being that John Adams was a practicing lawyer in state that didn't even have slavery).
  - collingreen 7mo ago
    Super good joke. Since your point seems to be that not all the founding fathers parent was referring to were actually slave owners do you have a claim for a rough ratio? I think that would be interesting and would be a more informative thing regardless of where on the scale it lands from "everybody but Adams" all the way up to "only a big names like Washington, Jefferson".
    - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
      To a first order approximation half the founders were from New England (no slavery) and the other half were from Virginia (no realistic chance of being important/rich enough to be a signatory without owning slaves). So call it 50-50
abenga 7mo ago
> a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny Do you have an example of such a country?

d3ff 7mo ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> There isnt a well known CEO in europe whos been the target of a failed stabbing Sure. Figurative language will be figurative. There have been tons of assasinations in the last 10 years of police chiefs, politicians, journalists and an MP. If we’re being pedantic, there isn’t technically a CEO in America who’s been killed. Mangione potted a middle manager with a CEO title. The billionaires who own the company are fine, as is the group CEO, and none of them materially changed any policies as a result of his death.

hackable_sand 7mo ago

You can't keep marginalizing people and expecting stability. Here's your canary.

andsoitis 7mo ago
> You can't keep marginalizing people and expecting stability. People who shoot someone or throw bombs at someone even though that someone never did something against them, should be marginalized. In prison.
- hackable_sand 7mo ago
  Okay
- s5300 7mo ago
  [dead]
- c_o_n_v_e_x 7mo ago
  >People who shoot someone or throw bombs at someone even though that someone never did something against them I think the point is that there's going to be an increasingly large percentage of the populace who think that the AI bosses / billionaire class did indeed do something against them.
  - munksbeer 7mo ago
    This has always been the case, hasn't it? There have always been groups of people who perceive technology change as a negative, or they are in fact negatively impacted. But they didn't ask the rest of us if we're ok for them to murder someone on our behalf. Personally I hope that AI will be a step change for the positive. I think it is inevitable that it will progress form here, in the darwinian sense, that someone else on this thread mentioned. With that in mind, we should all be pushing for it to be used to our benefit, rather than detriment. And like almost all technological advances in the past, I think this can happen. So if people are saying violence against Sam Altman is expected, then they're also saying violence against me is expected, because I am hopeful and vaguely supportive of the technology. That's quite scary.